J Quick has a Roy injury update: Good News

What the hell are you talking about? I thought it was a longshot before the playoffs started without Brandon, and now I think it's less of a longshot because they showed that they could execute down the stretch in a close game, which is the area I thought they were most likely to struggle in.

 

We will win the series and we will win it without Roy, giving him more time to prep for the second round.

 

What he said!
Even if he is a piece of crap Steeler & Ben Rapelisberger fan.

 

I was rooting strongly for a Suns matchup instead of Utah. When it became official, and I considered Utah's injuries, and considering how "hot" the Suns had been, and how Stoudamire owns us, I wasn't very confident. I felt the Suns series was slightly in their favor, and I wondered if maybe we'd have been better off with Utah. However, as soon as I started watching Game 1, I never once for a moment doubted we'd win that game, even when the Sun's took the lead. It was apparent from the beginning and throughout the game that we were going to control the tempo and probably win it at the end. I've been hard on Nate this year for certain things, but I knew the team was going to play Nate ball and Nate ball was going to win the game. So put me down as someone who changes their mind based on new information and present circumstances.

And thanks Nate for outcoaching the other guy and for preparing the Blazers all season for playoff basketball!

 

The thing I loved the most about the suns game was Nate was off the bench and on the floor yelling for the entire game. I think he spent more time out of his chair game 1 then the entire rest of the season combined.

 

But we had already beat Phoenix in Phoenix without Brandon. And we beat the Lakers and the Thunder without Brandon. Have you been paying attention all season? I wasn't at all surprised that we won game 1.

Also- you said we'd only win 38 games this season.

 

By the way, if Roy does come back, that means we can bench Rudy for the rest of the playoffs. Honestly, I don't see how we'd have any minutes for him.

 

I didn't think we'd beat Phoenix either. I'm still not sold it's any kind of foregone conclusion. If I had to bet, I'd give the Blazers about a 55-60% chance right now of winning the series. (Obviously, a lot higher if Roy can play some games in this series.)

I had us at 60 games this year, so it's not like I'm some kind of pessimist.

 

i don't wish to pick on you, but did you just say they "showed that they could execute down the stretch in a close game"???

They missed like 6 freethrows and a break-away dunk in the final 90 seconds. as the annoncers said we basically did everything wrong. if anything they showed they couldn't execute down the stretch... so try again... what's the real reason you're back tracking?

 

We don't need him for Round 1.

Let him heal.

 

If he can play, play him. He is a HUGE upgrade over Rudy and the Suns have absolutely no one who can guard him (remember the 52 points?) Winning a playoff series is tough. It's been 10 years since we've won one. If Roy is healthy, get him on the court.

 

Nik participates in many game threads and comes up with some soilid posts all season. . . I'm guessing he has been paying attention all season.

Posters want to place blame on lazy media for the suns being the crowned series winners. Well I'll tell you Vegas is not lazy and they have a lot to win and lose when they predict the outcomes of the game. They had Phx winning by 8 in game one and 8.5 in game 2. Those have been the biggest lines to date . . . meaning what Vegas considers the biggest mismatch in the first round. They only have the Lakers (the #1 seed) favored by 6.5 over OKC tonight.

So Nik saying that he thought the Blazers were a long shot to win the series might/hopefully be a wrong prediction, but no way out there.

 

Did the offense stall out in the fourth quarter like it has so many times in the past without Roy? No. Thanks for playing, try again.

 

Not quite true. Vegas does not care if they predict the game correctly or not. What they care about is perception on who will win the game. They set their lines so that half the people will bet one side and half the other side. That way they use the funds from side A to pay side B and make money from both sides in the charges that are paid to lay the bet. Sharps (sports betters) on the other hand care a lot about which side will win the bet but also on perception. Their job is often based on evaluating public perception and how those perceptions change the line. Then they bet against the common-man perception unless they believe the line did not move enough.

 

That's true . . . but it is amazing how often the line is accurate to what happens in the game. And while they do adjust the line according to bets, they better put a lot of research into wht they actually think the results will be because there are professional betters out there trying to break the house.

For example, the line today is 8.5. I don't think you can write that line off to bad research or public perception. Would it be that easy to walk into Vegas and lay a bet for the Blazers because lazy public perception says the Suns will win in a blow out? There is a reason Phx is thought of as the far superior team by both media and the betting world.

I think the lines acurate reflects the odds of a team winning. I don't bet basketball much so maybe I'm way off here, but I do bet football all the time and it blows me away how often the line correctly predicted the point differntial. The people taht set the football lines are damn good and you rarely see the the inital line move up or down by more than a point.

 

fourth quarter scoring this year with Roy. 65 games. 23.9 points average

fourth quarter scoring this year without Roy. 17 games. 24.29 points average

thanks for playing, try again.

 

First off, I am not a big better. In fact, last game was my first wager all year (I won) and I didn't place the bet, a friend did and I just took a part of him. So, I am not an expert, but this is an interesting subject.

Some of what I say comes from reading articles or listening to interviews from Alan Boston ( The Sharp in my Avatar) and other Sharps. However, most is just my analysis of the subject and I could be very wrong.

I disagree. If they pay attention to who will win, then they will create a lopsided line. The line has to be based on perception in order to draw even over the course of a season and make their money on the transaction fees. Everything I have ever read about line setting says that the objective is to split the bet. The sharps simply form part of the equation. A casino studies the games as you say, but not to figure out who will win. They study the games to understand how and what perceptions are formed.

There are reasons that the Suns are favored, and legit ones. All I am saying is that the Vegas lines are not based directly on those reasons, but indirectly on those reasons through an interpretation of public perception. As far as Suns being favored by both the media AND betting world, I don't know if that's totally true and to what degree. The Media yes. And the line is set there by perception. But, the true sharps MAY find value in betting the Blazers because public perception has moved the line too far in the suns favor.
.
From what I understand from an Alan Boston interview, most Sharps lay their bets early if they have "inside information" because they want to get their bets in before the information is leaked and the public changes the line. However, if they don't have specific information then they bet late so that they can take advantage of the public moving the lines. The bigger the game, the more the public is involved. If a game is not a common betting game, like the 24th game of the season between the twolves and the Jazz (not much to excite the betting masses) then most of the bets will be made by sharps and regular gamblers. The lines in those cases are more likely to reflect reality because they are being set so that pro and semi pro gamblers fall 50/50 on both sides of the lines. But, if a game is more popular to bet on, like an NCAA final 4 games, then then lines will not reflect the games as much because they will be swayed by the uneducated public. In both cases, Vegas line-setters are concerned with 50/50 lines and not who wins.

Since both the betting masses and sharps are forming their bets off real reasons, this makes the perceptions reflect the odds. But that does not change the fact that the line-setters don't care about who wins, just about setting a 50/50 line. Just because the line setters are good and you don't see the line more more than a point or so, does not mean that they are basing their bets off of their analysis of the games, just that they are excellent at determining the what the public will see as an accurate line so that there is 50/50 betting. If you listen to Bill simmons podcast during the football season, Every week he and one of his friends make wagers based on what the lines will be. It is quite amazing how accurate they are at guessing correctly. They do not bet on who wins, just on what the lines will be. It's interesting to hear their reasonings. Usually, the reasons have to do with how teams are perceived. .

Anyway, that's my take.

 

Good take. I agree the line is based on where they think the bets will fall 50-50 and adjusts as the people bet.(personally I chase early money because I believe the pro make early bets and I get lazy and fall in line with the who the early money is being laid on).

I should clarify taht I didn't mean the line experts cared who would win the game, they analyze who will win and by how much (more about the spread than the winner). I guess I just think they have to try to be accurate because if not, the pro bettor will jump on a "lock" pick where they think the people setting the line fucked up.

But overall, it sounds like you have read a lot about the dynamics of the line and your take makes sense. Actually good stuff to know since I bet a lot of football and never bothered to learn how it all works (I'm not one of those pro bettors) . . . in fact for football and horses just follow the simpple golden rule and bet on the early money.

 

I find the field interesting. A psychology of the masses. Some time, take a look at the lines and just for fun, go through each one and think about how perceptions are being formed and the demographics of the betters. See if that makes one side of the line more appealing.